Is local church membership meaningful?
One of the bed rock ideas which have been somewhat sacred to the Alliance for Renewal Churches has been the idea that covenant is a meaningful way to talk about and to frame local church membership. Back in the day (30 or so years ago) many of the founders of our group of churches observed that some of the things which help to bind a body of Christians together in a local church were disappearing. The ‘natural’ community of neighborhoods was slowly giving way to people living pretty much seperate from their so-called neighbors. When I was a kid I remember knowing the names of every family on my street. Those days have past.
Also the idea of a ‘parish’ where members of a church lived close enough to one another to see each other in more ordinary circumstances was giving way to an increasing tendency to see fellow church members only at proscribed meeting times. I believe (as did the guys that planted the first ARC churches) that this lack of community was doing great harm to the church. Forming more intentional commimtents to a local body of Christians was a an effort to try and recover this very essential element of the New Covenant communites which emerged from Pentecost (see for example the summary of church life in Acts 2:42-45) It is from this mindset that the notion of written membership covenants emerged as a part of Alliance for Renewal Churches. However, I see some troubling signs that make me wonder - is it worth doing?
I have noticed over the past several years the tendency of people to make this commitment to membering at Lamb of God and then not follow through on even the most basic elements of that commitment. I wonder to myself - have we done such a poor job of communicating what it means to make this commitment that people making it really don’t understand that faithfulness to it helps to build the life of the church community? For example: I will seek to lead an open life before my brothers and sisters, seeking and giving forgiveness whenever it is necessary (Matthew 18:35). I will seek their correction, counsel, and direction (Col. 3:12-16) and submit to them (Ephesian 5:21) Yet I have observed that it is quite common for people to make major decisions affecting their involvement with the church without so much as a word. I am not talking about asking for permission. I’m talking about consultation and feedback.
Similar things can be said about ‘I will give ministry to my brothers and sisters. I will pray for them. I will spend time in preparation for all gatherings, attend them, and actively participate in them. I know that God expects full participation of all the members of the body (I Cor. 14:26; Ephesians 4:16 and Hebrews 10:24-25).’ Whether we are talking about indifference to when the service actually begins, or not showing up at all, my observation is that it is becoming more common for covenanted members to not feel particularly bound to this commitment.
What then does that mean for Lamb and the relevance of ‘covenanted’ membership? Its seems to me that for some its rather like the posted speed limit on the Garden State Parkway. My struggle is this - why have a posted speed limit if it doesn’t really mean anything? Words mean something. My inclination is to say - maybe we should not have membership. Maybe we should just let commitment be a matter of action, and simply relate to those who show up on Sunday morning or for other meetings as attendees of whom some are genuinely committed. I can say that for myself that Lamb’s covenant has been a precious statement of an ideal that I try to live out. I don’t do it because of the words on the paper, but the commitment defines concrete ways in which what is in my heart can be expressed. There are certainly not the only ways, Christian community is an all encompassing life of walking through hardship, joys, trials, sickness, sucess, failure, conflict, and mundane life together with a body of people who can be identified. Not some nebulous ‘body of Christ’ but an actual body of people who I know and who know me. But at least as far as I am concerned that commitment is not less than what is spelled out in our membership covenant. Should we do away with out covenant as a way of placing boundaries around commitment?
There is a part of me that thinks we might need a moratorium on membership. I also think - maybe we should just release everyone from the commitment of the covenant and let people re-think whether they really want the responsibility of being accountible to a local church. What do you think?
Now I can imagine some folks reading this saying to themselves - the Old Black Dwarf sounds a bit crabby today, what gives? As I think more and more about the future and that time when I am no longer the pastor of Lamb of God Fellowship I also think about how things will change. I guess you could call it legacy. I want those things which have been imparted to us, those things which have helped to define our uniqueness as a church to last beyond my time. One of those things is a love for Christian community. It seems to me that definition about what helps to sustain community is a blessing. Tell me what you think?
March 15th, 2008 at 4:16 am
Since I just requested membership status at LOG, this blog hurts alittle. I definitely feel membership is important because it holds the participants accountable to the rest of the community in the church. Without membership, we do not belong. We are observers instead. I want membership not observance. I have been observing for a year now and I choose LOG to be my eternal church. I do not think membership is mandatory because after someone attends they may see differences personally that would lead them to non-membership.
But if a person decides to make the committment, then “YES”, there should be a process and a procedure to join the church as a permanent member.
Vicki
March 15th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Vicki,
Thanks for your sincerity and zeal to become a member. I think that this is a topic that needs to be re-visited by some who have already made this ‘covenant commitment.’ Even after 20 years of Lamb I am still surprised by the way in which some folks who make this commitment end up interpreting how they intend to live it out.
One of my convictions is that we should more carefully consider whether we are actually able to make a commitment to membership. If we want it to actually mean something, and not be merely a formality then those things which that commitment entails must be clear to the person making that commitment. I think that in the past we have had folks go through the classes, and appear to be willing to embrace the commitment only to decide afterwards that they will modify according to their circumstances, picking and choosing what they will do or not do. This weakens the meaning of commitment (rather like marriage in the modern world).
March 15th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Scott, you already know my views on this matter, but I’ll state them again for the record: I believe in the membership commitment, because the Church is more than just a group of people who believe the same stuff about God. We are to be committed to one another, we are to serve one another, and we are to love one another. If our commitment is only to God and a set of propositional truths about Him, what’s the point of having a church? I can do that by myself! If I cannot rely on my brothers and sisters to love and support me, especially those who have made a public commitment to do so, then Christianity is a lie.
All of this basically confirms your comment about our need to “carefully consider whether we are actually able to make a commitment to membership.”
March 16th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I am well aware of the modern world marriage thing. I understand what you are saying but I am excited to commit and wanted you to know that I am serious about this in my life.
Vicki
March 18th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
The black dwarf does sound crabby. Being part of the group who took the most recent membership class, maybe I have a different perspective than the other posters so far.
I am sorry, but your frustration with the membership of Lamb of God can’t be laid fully at the lack of activity of the new members. Some people will fail in their commitment on their own. But I think that some of the expectations you have of members, have been left as “nebulous” as the “body of Christ” you wish to avoid. Also the path toward being a good member needs to be clear for people to follow it.
There are a few things that I think shine some light on the way things are in our church, and in our culture. Young members of a family need to be modeled on how to act as well as told. When they fail they need to be held accountable. This is not just for committing sin but in meeting the expectations of the leadership. My guess is the people who are not meeting your expectations of membership are not reading this blog either. Because our churches model is not typical it will be more difficult for people to conform to the model.
Our society is much more mobile than it used to be, real neighborhood churches are behind us there is no way to bring that back unless you want to become Amish. Community on the other hand is possible. Community without the proximity of a neighborhood is more difficult, so we need to be more intentional to make it happen.
As I mentioned earlier modeling to new members what community looks like is important. If there was a structure for members to follow there would be no confusion about whom is falling short and what to do about it.
I would be disappointed if my commitment was revoked over others failure. I know that I personally could do better but I hope that I am living up to expectations. I know that community is a group effort but the failure of some should never destroy the whole.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Good comments. My frustration lies with fairly simply expectations, spelled out pretty clearly in our covenant.
I hope my expectations don’t exceed the covenant, a framework which has guided our shared understanding for 20 years. In the early days we took a longer period of time to teach through those ‘expectations.’ Perhaps that longer process is worth revisiting.
I think that for me, as an older person, the reality that concepts like consistency, faithfulness, and diligence had lost a certain shared meaning slipped up on me without me fully understanding these values had lost some of their weightiness. I think, that if what I am suggesting is true then we need to find a way to re-envision these ideals which help make community possible.
A study done on couples married 50 or more years suggests that it’s quantity of time spent together rather than quality which makes for depth. The implication is that it takes quantity to have a chance at quality. This is difficult if regular attendance to the one gathering we have weekly is considered to be optional (and I am talking about those who have in principal made a commitment to try and live out the ideas embodied in the covenant). Let me add that I’m not saying regularly missing the weekly worship gathering makes you a bad Christian - I am saying that it takes consistent involvement to build something meaningful, and to make an impact on others in the local body.
March 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
troy, thanks for the correction. I actually misunderstood the word - I thought proscribe meant ‘official’ or ‘prescribed’. Oops… But thanks and a keen eye, lad.